Congress Hamstrings Salmon and Trout Recovery

Eugene, OR. The House of Representatives is getting ready to pass a bill that significantly weakens the Endangered Species Act threatening the survival of fish and wildlife across the nation. This move, instigated by Representative Richard Pombo, flies in the face of what scientists say is needed to recover at-risk salmon, trout, and amphibians, and goes directly against the public's continued strong support of protecting endangered species.

The bill:

- undercuts the role of science in determining which species are in fact endangered and how to go about recovering them;

- eliminates important habitat protection measures — the key to recovering most endangered species; and

- allows political appointees and private landowners to call the shots, eliminating oversight by federal fish and wildlife agencies.

The Pacific Rivers Council emphasized that the continued decline of freshwater species qualifies river and stream ecosystems as the nation's most imperiled -- and require stronger, not weaker, species and habitat protection.

"In this century, we have already lost 40 North American fish species to extinction," said Chris Frissell, Senior Scientist for Pacific Rivers Council. "Roughly 150 others are formally recognized as heading down the same path, landing them on the Endangered list or as candidates for ESA listing, and many more are in equally dire straits. Habitat deterioration is the a primary factor underlying nearly all of these losses."

"The framers of the Act required the designation of critical habitat for a reason," said Deanna Spooner, Pacific Rivers Council staff attorney and Conservation Director. "If we don't identify which habitat is most important to species continued survival, we can't take action to prevent extinction -- which is whole point of the Act. They've just cut the legs off of the ESA -- but seem to be hoping that the public wont notice."

Spooner noted that anti-environment interests have been trying since Newt Gingrich days to weaken the ESA, but were repeatedly unsuccessful until the Bush Administration came along. The politicians behind this bill have always cared more about big business and big money than the fish and wildlife that the overwhelming majority of Americans want to conserve for their children to enjoy.

"There's just a whole lot less for advocates of species protection to work with now," laments David Bayles, Pacific Rivers Councils Executive Director, "It's like trying to put together a puzzle when you don't have all the pieces: How will we recover species if we cant apply good science to protect the habitat they need to survive? The answer is: we won't."

"If I were a fish or a salamander, I'd definitely want to move to Canada," said Bayles, "Congress just declared war."

Frequently Asked Questions about the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Q: How does the ESA work to save species at risk of extinction?

A: The ESA is a backstop to ensure that species do not continue trends toward extinction, and requires that the government agencies with the duty to manage these species do so in way that fosters their recovery. It requires federal managers to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service in planning projects -- such as timber sales, hydropower operations, road construction, and other activities -- that could impact endangered or threatened species, so that they may tailor their projects to minimize such impact. At the same time, the ESA requires federal fish and wildlife managers to create plans for bringing populations back from the brink of extinction.

Q: What is the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service in implementing the ESA?

A: These agencies are responsible for the management of our nation's fish and wildlife. Under the ESA, federal agencies must consult with these wildlife managers before proceeding with or approving any project impacting species listed under the ESA, to ensure that the project would not jeopardize the continued existence of that species. The wildlife managers are also responsible for the design and implementation of recovery plans for listed species, which aim to rebuild dwindling wildlife populations so that formal federal protection is no longer necessary. They also issue permits to private landowners that allow for limited harm of endangered species and their habitats.

Q: What is critical habitat and why is it so important?

A: Habitat protection is the cornerstone of species protection and recovery. Habitat degradation and loss is often one of the primary factors leading to species decline. At the same time, growing species populations cannot thrive without suitable habitat to live in. Under the ESA, critical habitat is defined as the areas currently or historically occupied by a species that are essential to the conservation of the species. Once habitat is designated as critical, it is afforded the protection necessary to keep it suitable for the species that need it to survive.

Q: How do private citizens factor into the equation?

A: Under the ESA, it is illegal for anyone — private citizen, corporation or federal agency — to harm or take an endangered species. However, several flexible options exist for private citizens who wish to conduct activities on their land that may affect listed species. Private landowners may develop Habitat Conservation Plans or Safe Harbor Agreements, both of which reward voluntary conservation measures by allowing for some take of species in exchange for limited ESA liability.

Q: Isn't it true that few species have actually been taken off the ESA list? Doesn't that demonstrate that the ESA is broken and needs changes?

A: The ESA has been in place for just over 30 years, and many species have been added to the list only within the last decade. But species recovery can take several decades and requires full implementation of all protective provisions of the Act, particularly the critical habitat provision. However, only in rare cases have all of the required provisions been implemented for a species; many species are yet to have recovery plans in place or critical habitat designated. Without implementation of these provisions, many species are left to dwindle to the threshold of extinction, with no concerted effort made to grow their populations to a self-sustaining level.